Will the Pope's Pronouncement Set Ecumenism Back a Hundred Years? (Challenge to Apostolicity)

Yesterday's Reuters headline: "The Vatican on Tuesday said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church were not full churches of Jesus Christ." The actual proclamation, posted on the official Vatican Web site, says that Protestant Churches are really "ecclesial communities" rather than Churches, because they lack apostolic succession, and therefore they "have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery." Furthermore, not even the Eastern Orthodox Churches are real Churches, even though they were explicitly referred to as such in the Vatican document Unitatis Redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism). The new document explains that they were only called Churches because "the Council wanted to adopt the traditional use of the term." This new clarification, issued officially by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, but in fact strongly supported by Pope Benedict XVI, manages to insult both Protestants and the Orthodox, and it may set ecumenism back a hundred years.

The new document, officially entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," claims that the positions it takes do not reverse the intent of various Vatican II documents, especially Unitatis Redintegratio, but merely clarify them. In support of this contention, it cites other documents, all issued by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: Mysterium Ecclesiae (1973), Communionis notio (1992), and Dominus Iesus (2000). The last two of these documents were issued while the current pope, as Cardinal Ratzinger, was prefect of the Congregation. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was born in 1542 with the name Sacred Congregation of the Universal Inquisition, and for centuries it has operated as an extremely conservative force with the Roman Catholic Church, opposing innovation and modernizing tendencies, suppressing dissent, and sometimes, in its first few centuries, persecuting those who believed differently. More recently, the congregation has engaged in the suppression of some of Catholicism's most innovative and committed thinkers, such as Yves Congar, Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Matthew Fox, and Jon Sobrino and other liberation theologians. In light of the history of the Congregation of the Faith, such conservative statements as those released this week are hardly surprising, though they are quite unwelcome.

It is natural for members of various Christian Churches to believe that the institutions to which they belong are the best representatives of Christ's body on earth--otherwise, why wouldn't they join a different Church? It is disingenuous, however, for the leader of a Church that has committed itself "irrevocably" (to use Pope John Paul II's word in Ut Unum Sint [That They May Be One] 3, emphasis original) to ecumenism to claim to be interested in unity while at the same time declaring that all other Christians belong to Churches that are in some way deficient. How different was the attitude of Benedict's predecessors, who wrote, "In subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the [Roman] Catholic Church--for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame" (Unitatis Redintegratio 3). In Benedict's view, at various times in history groups of Christians wandered from the original, pure Roman Catholic Church, and any notion of Christian unity today is predicated on the idea of those groups abandoning their errors and returning to the Roman Catholic fold. The pope's problem seems to be that he is a theologian rather than a historian. Otherwise he could not possibly make such outrageous statements and think that they were compatible with the spirit of ecumenism that his immediate predecessors promoted.

One of the pope's most strident arguments against the validity of other Churches is that they can't trace their bishops' lineages back to the original apostles, as the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church can. There are three problems with this idea.

First, many Protestants deny the importance of apostolic succession as a guarantor of legitimacy. They would argue that faithfulness to the Bible and/or the teachings of Christ is a better measure of authentic Christian faith than the ability to trace one's spiritual ancestry through an ecclesiastical bureaucracy. A peripheral knowledge of the lives of some of the medieval and early modern popes (e.g., Stephen VI, Sergius III, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI) is enough to call the insistence on apostolic succession into serious question. Moreover, the Avignon Papacy and the divided lines of papal claimants in subsequent decades calls into serious question the legitimacy of the whole approach. Perhaps the strongest argument against the necessity of apostolic succession comes from the Apostle Paul, who was an acknowledged apostle despite not having been ordained by one of Jesus' original twelve disciples. In fact, Paul makes much of the fact that his authority came directly from Jesus Christ rather than from one of the apostles (Gal 1:11-12). Apostolic succession was a useful tool for combating incipient heresy and establishing the antiquity of the churches in particular locales, but merely stating that apostolic succession is a necessary prerequisite for being a true church does not make it so.

The second problem with the new document's insistence upon apostolic succession is the fact that at least three other Christian communions have apostolic succession claims that are as valid as that of the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches, which split from the Roman Catholic Church in 1054, can trace their lineages back to the same apostles that the Roman Catholic Church can, a fact acknowledged by Unitatis Redintegratio 14. The Oriental Orthodox Churches, such as the Coptic and Ethiopic Orthodox Churches, split from the Roman Catholic Church several centuries earlier, but they too can trace their episcopal lineages back to the same apostles claimed by the Roman Catholic Church as its founders. Finally, the Anglican Church, which broke away from the Roman Catholic Church during the reign of King Henry VIII, can likewise trace the lineage of every bishop back through the first archbishop of Canterbury, Augustine. In addition to these three collections of Christian Churches, the Old Catholics and some Methodists also see value in the idea of apostolic succession, and they can trace their episcopal lineages just as far back as Catholic bishops can.

The third problem with the idea of apostolic succession is that the earliest bishops in certain places are simply unknown, and the lists produced in the third and fourth centuries that purported to identify every bishop back to the founding of the church in a particular area were often historically unreliable. Who was the founding bishop of Byzantium? Who brought the gospel to Alexandria? To Edessa? To Antioch? There are lists that give names (e.g., http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm), such as the Apostles Mark (Alexandria), Andrew (Byzantium), and Thaddeus (Armenia), but the association of the apostles with the founding of these churches is legendary, not historical. The most obvious breakdown of historicity in the realm of apostolic succession involves none other than the see occupied by the pope, the bishop of Rome. It is certain that Peter did make his way to Rome before the time of Nero, where he perished, apparently in the Neronian persecution following the Great Fire of Rome, but it is equally certain that the church in Rome predates Peter, as it also predates Paul's arrival there (Paul also apparently died during the Neronian persecution). The Roman Catholic Church may legitimately claim a close association with both Peter and Paul, but it may not legitimately claim that either was the founder of the church there. The fact of the matter is that the gospel reached Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Edessa, and other early centers of Christianity in the hands of unknown, faithful Christians, not apostles, and the legitimacy of the churches established there did not suffer in the least because of it.

All the talk in the new document about apostolic succession is merely a smokescreen, however, for the main point that the Congregation of the Faith and the pope wanted to drive home: recognition of the absolute primacy of the pope. After playing with the words "subsists in" (Lumen Gentium [Dogmatic Constitution on the Church] 8) and "church" (Unitatis Redintegratio 14) in an effort to make them mean something other than what they originally meant, the document gets down to the nitty-gritty. "Since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches." From an ecumenical standpoint, this position is a non-starter. Communion with Rome and acknowledging the authority of the pope as bishop of Rome is a far different matter from recognizing the pope as the "visible head" of the entire church, without peer. The pope is an intelligent man, and he knows that discussions with other Churches will make no progress on the basis of this prerequisite, so the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the pope, despite his protestations, has no interest in pursuing ecumenism. Trying to persuade other Christians to become Roman Catholics, which is evidently the pope's approach to other Churches, is not ecumenism, it's proselytism.

Fortunately, this document does not represent the viewpoint of all Catholics, either laypeople or scholars. Many ordinary Catholics would scoff at the idea that other denominations were not legitimate Churches, which just happen to have different ideas about certain topics and different ways of expressing a common Christianity. Similarly, many Catholic scholars are doing impressive work in areas such as theology, history, biblical study, and ethics, work that interacts with ideas produced by non-Catholic scholars. In the classroom and in publications, Catholics and non-Catholics learn from each other, challenge one another, and, perhaps most importantly, respect one another.

How does one define the Church? Christians have many different understandings of the term, and Catholics are divided among themselves, as are non-Catholics. The ecumenical movement is engaged in addressing this issue in thoughtful, meaningful, and respectful ways. Will the narrow-minded view expressed in "Responses" be the death-knell of the ecumenical movement? Hardly. Unity among Christians is too important an idea to be set aside. Will the document set back ecumenical efforts? Perhaps, but Christians committed to Christian unity--Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant alike--will get beyond it. The ecumenical movement is alive and well, and no intemperate pronouncement from the Congregation of the Faith, or the current pope, can restrain it for long. Even if ecumenism, at least as it involves the Roman Catholic Church's connection with other Churches, is temporarily set back a hundred years, that distance can be closed either by changes of heart or changes of leadership.

Well, then, let’s pull up a seat and enjoy the show.

The modern KJV edition that you read from is probably not the 1611. It’s probably the Blayney edition of 1769. The 1611 edition of the KJV underwent various changes in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769. Which version of the KJV is not in error?

Also, if one claims the original 1611 KJV is the only inspired, infallible Word of God, he is claiming that Purgatory is true, since the Apocrypha was included in the 1611 version and it teaches Purgatory (2 Maccabees 12:45). Are you prepared to enter Purgatory at the end of your life, if you are judged worthy of everlasting life in Heaven?

Jude 25:

“To the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen” (NIV).

“To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and for ever. Amen” (KJV).

John 14:14:

“You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (NIV).

“If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it” (KJV).

a comparison between the KJV and Young’s Literal, which were both based on the TR! Acts 16:17 reads:

“The same followed Paul and us, and cried, saying, These men are the servants of the most high God, which show unto us the way of salvation” (KJV).

“. . . who declare to us a way of salvation” (Young’s Literal).
Comment: The KJV (and the NIV) are both wrong according to the actual Greek rendering! The Greek does not have the definite article which would yield “the way of salvation.” Young’s Literal translation is exactly as its name indicates — a literal Greek to English rendering of this verse based on the TR — “a way of salvation.”

Dr. Robert Young wrote in the preface to the revised edition of his translation of the Bible:

“For example, in Mat. 2. 4, Herod is represented as enquiring “where Christ” should be born. But “Christ” is the surname of the man Jesus, who was quite unknown to Herod, who could not consequently ask for a person of whose existence he was ignorant. The true explanation is, that King James’ Translators omitted the definite article which occurs in the original. The correct translation is, where “the Christ” should be born. Herod knew of “the Christ,” the Messiah, the long promised Saviour and King of the Jews, and his enquiry was, where He was to be born, whose kingdom was to be over all. The simple article clears up the whole. There are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original”

Also note Jn. 3:16 in Youngs, regarding the continuous tense for believe:

“For God did so love the world, that His son — the only begotten — He gave, that every one who is believing in him may not perish, but may have life age-during.”
This translation, with the verb tenses, opens up the clear meanings of Scripture, hidden to people who only read the KJV.

Another verse from the 1611 edition of the KJV is Rev 21:8. Please note how hard it is to read:

“But the feareful, and vnbeleeuing, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all lyars, shall haue their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone which is the second death.”
In our personal library, we have a book written by Ralph Earle titled, Word Meanings in the New Testament, published by Baker Book House. He comments on the words “now full” as used in Mark 4:37 of the KJV:

“The Greek does not have the aorist tense, suggesting completed action (see the Blass-Debrunner Grammar), but the present infinitive of continuing action. So a better translation is ‘already filling up’ (NASB) or ‘nearly swamped’ (NIV). If the boat had been ‘now full’ (KJV), it would have been at the bottom of the lake!” (p. 37).
Earle also comments on the KJV rendering in Romans 8:16 of “itself” (on page 179):

“The KJV reads: ‘The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.’ The RSV changes ‘itself’ to ‘himself.’

Orthodox Christianity has always held to the deity of Jesus Christ and the personality of the Holy Spirit. Modern liberalism has frequently denied both. The KJV rendering here would seem to deny the personality of the Holy Spirit, calling Him an ‘it.’ Even if one is reading the KJV in the pulpit he should always change ‘itself’ to ‘himself.’ By doing so we affirm our faith in the Holy Spirit, not as an impersonal influence, but as a living Person who dwells in our hearts.

and there are a bunch of other errors noted in more detail at http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/kjvo.htm

Calvin on Predestination

“In Book III, Chapter XXI of his Institutes of the Christian Religion, Calvin addresses the danger of curiosity in his discussion on predestination by stating: “Human curiosity renders the discussion of predestination, already somewhat difficult of itself, very confusing and even dangerous. [Therefore] if anyone with carefree assurance breaks into this place, he will not succeed in satisfying his curiosity and he will enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit.” (III, XXI, 1, pp. 922 23)

He follows with this solution:

“The Word of the Lord is the sole way that can lead us in our search or all that it is lawful to hold concerning him, and is the sole light to illumine our vision of all that we should see of him, it will readily keep and restrain us from all rashness; Let this, therefore, first of all be before our eyes: to seek any other knowledge of predestination than what the Word of God discloses is not less insane than if one should purpose to walk in a pathless waste, or to see in darkness” (III, XXI, 2, p. 923).

Calvin then warns against a second danger of avoiding the question of predestination by saying:

“Scripture is the school of the Holy Spirit, in which, as nothing is omitted that is both necessary and useful to know, so nothing is taught but what is expedient to know.

Therefore we must guard against depriving believers of anything disclosed about predestination in Scripture, lest we seem either wickedly to defraud them of the blessing of their God or to accuse and scoff at the Holy Spirit for having published what it is in any way profitable to suppress;

Whoever, then, heaps odium upon the doctrine of predestination openly reproaches God, as if he had unadvisedly let slip something hurtful to the church” (III, XXI, 3-4, pp. 924, 926).

Servetus would surely take that warning seriously after being burned at the stake using the “slow roast” when Calvin voted for the fast roast or smothering..

Calvin recognizes that people are evil for some reason and they will not hear God:

“In discussing the objections of those who oppose that the wicked perish by God’s ordination, Calvin replies: “We; confess that the wicked suffer nothing out of accord with God’s most righteous judgment.

Despite the fact that we do not clearly grasp the reason for this, let us not be unwilling to admit some ignorance where God’s wisdom rises to its height” (III, XXIV, 14, p. 982). To explain the cause of the hardness of the wicked’s hearts, Calvin explains:

“The fact that the reprobate do not obey God’s Word when it is made known to them will be justly charged against the malice and depravity of their hearts, provided it be added at the same time that they have been given over to this depravity because they have been raised up by the just but inscrutable judgment of God to show forth his glory in their condemnation.

God raised up Pharaoh to show forth His Wisdom. This means that God preserved and used the evil already in Pharoah and not that He made Pharaoh evil.

Oh, yes, we noted that the gods of burning, such as Molech, delighted in the screams of innocent children assigned by their parents and clergy to burn to death to the beat of music so that the priest could interpret this unknown tongue as a message from the god to the parents or to the nation.

However, Scripture says that:

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is long suffering to reward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 2 Peter 3:9

And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient; 2 Timothy 2:24

In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; 2 Timothy 2:25

And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. 2 Timothy 2:26

For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, Hebrews 6:4

And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, Hebrews 6:5

If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. 2 Timothy Hebrews 6:6

We can fail to benefit from the Grace by our own actions:

Looking diligently lest any man fail of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you, and thereby many be defiled; Heb 12:15

Lest there be any fornicator, or profane person, as Esau, who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. Hebrews 12:16

For ye know how that afterward, when he would have inherited the blessing, he was rejected: for he found no place of repentance, though he sought it carefully with tears. Hebrews 12:17

If Esau had no choice in losing his physical inheritance (not his salvation) then why would Paul warn people not to do what Esau did?

John Calvin: “Similarly, when it is narrated of Eli’s sons that they did not heed his wholesome admonitions, ‘for it was the will of the Lord to slay them’ (I Sam 2:25),

it is not denied that their stubbornness arose out of their own wickedness; but at the same time it is noted why they were left in their stubbornness, even though the Lord could have softened their hearts; because his immutable decree had once for all destined them to destruction.

They were decreed to destruction because of their own wickedness. It is not evil of God to leave people in the contition they have placed themselves.

John Calvin: “On the same point is John’s statement: ‘Though he had done so many signs before them, yet they did not believe in him. It was that the word of . . . Isaiah might be fulfilled: ‘’Lord, who has believed our report’ (John 12:37-33; Isa. 53:1)?; Paul’s statement confirms this: ‘Christ a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, the power and wisdom of God’ (I Cor. 1:23-24).

For when he stated what usually happens whenever the gospel is preached; namely, that it irritates some, is spurned by others; he says that it is prized only among ‘those who are called” (III, XXIV, 14, p. 981)!

When people reject the Word of God totally, he closes their eyes. However, if they were predestinated why wouldn’t God close their eyes and ears BFEFORE:

Then said I, Woe is me for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. Isa 6:5

And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not. Isa 6:9

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed. Isa 6: 10

Then said I, Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate, Isa 6: 11

And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land. Isa 6: 12

The story of Eli: God pledged to have these two men killed but He does not speak of their eternal destiny:

Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. 1 Samuel 2:22

And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people. 1 Samuel 2:23

Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear: ye make the Lords people to transgress. 1 Samuel 2:24

If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge him: but if a man sin against the Lord, who shall intreat for him? Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them. 1 Samuel 2:25

By reading the rest of the story we know that God planned to bring the house of Eli to an end because of the willful sin of his sons and because of Eli’s willful refusal to restrain them. That is, God “predestinated” to end Eli’s rule because Eli refused to obey God’s will:

And the Lord said to Samuel, Behold, I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. 1 Samuel 3:11

In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house: when I begin, I will also make an end. 1 Samuel 3:12

For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. 1 Samuel 3:13

And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. 1 Samuel 3:14

If Eli had restrained his sons they would not have sinned and God would not have brought the family rule to an end. If this does not refute Calvin then God was just speaking nonesense in the above verses. Because God meant what He said, Calvin is wrong.

When the Ark was taken and Eli’s sons were slain, he fell over dead when he heard the news:

And the ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain. 1 Samuel 4:11

Finaly, the “house” or family no longer served God in Shiloh which God deserted (1Kings 2:27)

John Calvin Again: Paul’s statement confirms this: ‘Christ a stumbling block to the Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, the power and wisdom of God’ (I Cor. 1:23-24). For when he stated what usually happens whenever the gospel is preached; namely, that it irritates some, is spurned by others; he says that it is prized only among ‘those who are called” (III, XXIV, 14, p. 981)!

Let us take a look at this and see if Calvin is correct:

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Greeks foolishness; 1 Corinthians 1:23

But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. 1 Corinthians 1:24

For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: 1 Corinthians 1:26

But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty; 1 Corinthians 1:27

And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: 1 Corinthians 1:28

However, this was because they thought of themselves wise. When they turned to the Lord those who had been blind would begin to understand:

But even unto this day, when Moses is read, the vail is upon their heart. 2 Corinthians 3:15

Nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord, the vail shall be taken away. 2 Corinthians 3:16

Like the potter’s clay, some people just refuse to be molded in God’s hands. However, when wicked people headed for damnation, turn in another direction they are headed toward salvation:

And there ye shall serve gods, the work of mens hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell. Deuteronomy 4:28

But if from thence thou shalt seek the Lord thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul. Deuteronomy 4:29

When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the Lord thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice; Deuteronomy 4:30

(For the Lord thy God is a merciful God;) he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them. Deuteronomy 4:31

The purpose of John and Jesus was to turn those heading to destruction into the way of righteousness. If they were headed into destruction and Christ did not come would they be lost? Then the coming and death of Jesus Christ was in vain.

If they were “already predestinated” and Jesus couldn’t turn them didn’t He die in vain. Of John the Baptist, it was prophesied:

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mothers womb. Luke 1:15

And many of the children of Israel shall he turn to the Lord their God. Luke 1:16

And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord. Luke 1:17

And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Hebrews 2:13

If the lost continued to be lost and the saved continued to be saved then John surely wasted his time and life!

with thanks to: http://www.piney.com/calvin.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.